BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analyses are commonly used in economic evaluations of interventions or conditions that have an impact on health-related quality of life. However, evaluating utilities in children presents several challenges since young children may not have the cognitive ability to complete measurement tasks and thus utility values must be estimated by proxy assessors. Another solution is to use utilities derived from an adult population. To better inform the future conduct of cost-utility analyses in paediatric populations, we reviewed the published literature reporting utilities among children and adults across selected conditions common to paediatric and adult populations. METHODS: An electronic search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to November 2008 was conducted to identify studies presenting utility values derived from the Health Utilities Index (HUI) or EuroQoL-5Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires or using time trade off (TTO) or standard gamble (SG) techniques in children and/or adult populations from randomized controlled trials, comparative or non-comparative observational studies, or cross-sectional studies. The search was targeted to four chronic diseases/conditions common to both children and adults and known to have a negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS: After screening 951 citations identified from the literature search, 77 unique studies included in our review evaluated utilities in patients with asthma (n = 25), cancer (n = 23), diabetes mellitus (n = 11), skin diseases (n = 19) or chronic diseases (n = 2), with some studies evaluating multiple conditions. Utility values were estimated using HUI (n = 33), EQ-5D (n = 26), TTO (n = 12), and SG (n = 14), with some studies applying more than one technique to estimate utility values. 21% of studies evaluated utilities in children, of those the majority being in the area of oncology. No utility values for children were reported in skin diseases. Although few studies provided comparative information on utility values between children and adults, results seem to indicate that utilities may be similar in adolescents and young adults with asthma and acne. Differences in results were observed depending on methods and proxies. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the need to conduct future research regarding measurement of utilities in children.
BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analyses are commonly used in economic evaluations of interventions or conditions that have an impact on health-related quality of life. However, evaluating utilities in children presents several challenges since young children may not have the cognitive ability to complete measurement tasks and thus utility values must be estimated by proxy assessors. Another solution is to use utilities derived from an adult population. To better inform the future conduct of cost-utility analyses in paediatric populations, we reviewed the published literature reporting utilities among children and adults across selected conditions common to paediatric and adult populations. METHODS: An electronic search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to November 2008 was conducted to identify studies presenting utility values derived from the Health Utilities Index (HUI) or EuroQoL-5Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires or using time trade off (TTO) or standard gamble (SG) techniques in children and/or adult populations from randomized controlled trials, comparative or non-comparative observational studies, or cross-sectional studies. The search was targeted to four chronic diseases/conditions common to both children and adults and known to have a negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS: After screening 951 citations identified from the literature search, 77 unique studies included in our review evaluated utilities in patients with asthma (n = 25), cancer (n = 23), diabetes mellitus (n = 11), skin diseases (n = 19) or chronic diseases (n = 2), with some studies evaluating multiple conditions. Utility values were estimated using HUI (n = 33), EQ-5D (n = 26), TTO (n = 12), and SG (n = 14), with some studies applying more than one technique to estimate utility values. 21% of studies evaluated utilities in children, of those the majority being in the area of oncology. No utility values for children were reported in skin diseases. Although few studies provided comparative information on utility values between children and adults, results seem to indicate that utilities may be similar in adolescents and young adults with asthma and acne. Differences in results were observed depending on methods and proxies. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the need to conduct future research regarding measurement of utilities in children.
Authors: Marilyn L Moy; Anne L Fuhlbrigge; Karen Blumenschein; Richard H Chapman; Alan J Zillich; Karen M Kuntz; A David Paltiel; Barrett T Kitch; Scott T Weiss; Peter J Neumann Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: John A Nyman; Nathan A Barleen; Bryan E Dowd; Daniel W Russell; Stephen Joel Coons; Patrick W Sullivan Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Sandra Shimoda; Beatriz de Camargo; John Horsman; William Furlong; Luiz Fernando Lopes; Adriana Seber; Ronald D Barr Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Helen M McTaggart-Cowan; Carlo A Marra; Yaling Yang; John E Brazier; Jacek A Kopec; J Mark FitzGerald; Aslam H Anis; Larry D Lynd Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Daniëlle C M Willems; Manuela A Joore; Johannes J E Hendriks; Emiel F M Wouters; Johan L Severens Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Date: 2007-07-27
Authors: Dorothea Kesztyüs; Anja Schreiber; Tamara Wirt; Martina Wiedom; Jens Dreyhaupt; Susanne Brandstetter; Benjamin Koch; Olivia Wartha; Rainer Muche; Martin Wabitsch; Reinhold Kilian; Jürgen M Steinacker Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2011-10-11
Authors: Erinn T Rhodes; Lisa A Prosser; Tracy A Lieu; Thomas J Songer; David S Ludwig; Lori M Laffel Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Seija K Kromm; Jennifer Bethell; Ferne Kraglund; Sarah A Edwards; Audrey Laporte; Peter C Coyte; Wendy J Ungar Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-10-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Clazien Bouwmans; Annemarie van der Kolk; Mark Oppe; Saskia Schawo; Elly Stolk; Michel van Agthoven; Jan Buitelaar; LeonaHakkaart van Roijen Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2014-12
Authors: G Engelmann; D Erhard; M Petersen; P Parzer; A A Schlarb; F Resch; R Brunner; G F Hoffmann; H Lenhartz; A Richterich Journal: Child Psychiatry Hum Dev Date: 2015-04
Authors: Shekhar K Gadkaree; Jennifer C Fuller; Natalie S Justicz; Rachel E Weitzman; Adeeb Derakhshan; Suresh Mohan; Robin W Lindsay Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 4.611